On Monday, President Donald Trump opened his second term with an inaugural address declaring that America has a “national energy emergency.” Vowing to tap into the country’s vast oil and gas reserves, Trump dismisses the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who say burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases that overheat the planet.
Instead of trying to curb emissions on those gases, Trump signed executive orders withdrawing the United States from the 2015 Paris climate deal. He also announced initiatives promoting Alaskan oil and gas development and reversing outgoing President Joe Biden’s policies protecting Arctic lands and U.S. coastal waters from drilling and encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles.
Climate scientists, as well as other experts on environmental and energy policy, say that Trump's emergency doesn't actually exist. They emphasize that the president's desire to ramp up fossil fuel use is a self-destructive move, as Earth’s temperature is already 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, one that will hurt both the planet and the economy.
“There is no national energy emergency — and certainly no emergency as President Trump has defined it,” Julie McNamara, deputy policy director with the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Salon. “President Trump is simply doing the bidding of fossil fuel executives, attempting to slash critical climate and public health protections and basic project accountability to boost their bottom lines.”
"There is no national energy emergency — and certainly no emergency as President Trump has defined it."
Dr. Mark Serreze, the director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center, likewise said “there is no energy emergency in the sense of not having enough. The USA is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas.” Serreze said we need to get off hydrocarbons and fossil fuels, and transition to solar, wind and nuclear and embrace energy conservation, but "Trump's climate policy seems to be to ignore the threat of climate change. History and humanity will not look kindly on that choice.”
Energy sector experts have confirmed that America has more than enough energy already, and point out Trump’s energy policies will have harmful economic ramifications for ordinary citizens.
John P. Holdren, a Harvard University professor of environmental science and engineering who specializes in energy technology innovation, described Trump’s claim about a national energy emergency as “absurd,” echoing Serreze in saying that “this country is producing oil and gas at the highest rates in our history — and more of each than any other country.”
Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.
“The USA also produces far more nuclear energy than any other country and is producing the most renewable energy in our history,” Holdren said. “We are more than self-sufficient in energy as a whole — that is, we produce more than we consume. That has been true since 2019; the last time before that when the USA was (barely) self-sufficient was 1957.”
Even though Trump supporters bemoan rising energy costs, Holdren pointed out that gasoline was 9% cheaper in real dollars at the end of 2023 than it was in the final year of Trump’s first term, while residential electricity is 6% more expensive.
“There are challenges in the U.S. energy picture, but they are mainly about the need to expand non-fossil energy faster in order to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions that are driving increasingly devastating climate change — a now overwhelmingly obvious problem that Trump denies,” Holdren said. “His other executive orders so far include measures that will slow down progress on the real challenges.”
Kenneth Gillingham, a Yale University professor of environmental and energy economics, explained that although Trump’s attempts to combat the non-emergency will initially be tied up in court, “oil companies are already drilling as much as they want given the price of oil.” The long-term consequence is that Trump’s environmental deregulations will lead to real-world harms to people, and that companies and investors may decide not to give money to clean energy businesses, “which could slow down progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Businesses that manufacture electric vehicles or wind energy (also targeted by Trump’s executive orders) are likely to be negatively impacted.
Gillingham added that although Trump was elected in part because Americans want him to lower prices, the president’s insistent denial of climate change will have economic ripple effects that do the opposite and exacerbate inflation. For example, the recent Los Angeles wildfires are estimated to cost more than $200 billion, and scientists say these heavy financial burdens are just the beginning.
“There is a long-running connection between climate change and inflation in that higher insurance costs and investments to make supply chains more resilient to climate shocks will increase prices in the long run,” Gillingham said. “I do think that this is a secondary factor relative to decisions by the Fed or other central banks. And in the short-run, other inflationary factors dominate.”
Dr. Kyla Bennett, the director of science policy for the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), told Salon that there is an inextricable link between the science of climate change and the economics of rising prices.
“Higher temperatures, floods and droughts — all symptoms of climate change — adversely impact food production, which helps drive inflation,” Bennett said. “Heat waves increase energy demand, which drives inflation. Severe weather impacts supply chains. Natural disasters (like the fires in LA) increase demand for building materials, housing, etc., which drives inflation. There are recent peer-reviewed studies on this.”
Holdren echoed these concerns, pointing out that “it should be obvious that harm from the impacts of climate change — more damages to people, property, productivity and ecosystem services from droughts, heat waves, floods, hurricanes, pest infestations, and the spread of tropical diseases — can only make everything more costly than would otherwise be the case.”
Dan Esty, a Yale University professor of environmental law and policy, pointed to current events for evidence of the kinds of phenomena that both confirm climate change and harm the economy.
We need your help to stay independent
“With fires in LA, two high-impact hurricanes this past year within a month hitting Florida, and floods in the Carolinas, we are starting to see the kinds of impacts that climate scientists have long forecast,” Esty said. “We need, in this regard, to redouble our efforts to move to a clean energy future — and to lead the world in creating a sustainable 21st century economy.”
In lieu of this transition, natural disasters caused by climate change like wildfires, floods and tropical storms will become more common.
“When disaster strikes, prices go up,” Esty said. “In recent years, we have seen an increasing number of supply chain disruptions in the wake of disasters (wind storms, floods and fires) that might well be climate change-caused. Ignoring the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will increase the pace and intensity of climate change — and cause further spikes in prices in the years ahead.”
McNamara bluntly argued that Trump’s policies reveal a disconnect from reality.
“The farce is in the facts,” McNamara said. “President Trump is claiming an energy emergency at the same time that the U.S. is producing record levels of fossil fuels. If President Trump were truly committed to building out a clean, affordable, resilient energy system, he’d be pulling every lever he could to support the ramp-up of clean energy solutions; instead, right from the jump he attempted to knock any new wind power offline.”
Shares